Admiral Beez
Banned
You can have a forward positioned gearbox and still be able to swap it out easily in the field, such as this Sherman below.
according to Archives Awareness the tanks are;
Churchill MK IV
Cromwell
T-34
IS-2
Panzer III
Panzer IV
M4A2 Sherman
Panther
Tiger
and the table is number/tank/mass/location of transmission/gun caliber/number of crew in the turret/turret ring diameter in millimeters/width of the gunner's space/size of the loader's space/height of the fighting compartment/size of the fighting compartment in meters cubed/size of the hull space in meters cubed/size of the turret in meters cubed/volume occupied by crew and components.
The indication from this is that the IS-2 had comparable width of gunner's space to other tanks, equivalent to the Tiger and superior to the Panzer III and IV, loader space size which is superior to all other tanks except for the Panther, and comparable height of the fighting compartment, superior to the Tiger, equivalent to the Panther, dramatically superior to the Pazer IV, and only inferior when compared to its German counterparts in the form of the Panzer III.
Therefor, I must doubt that the interior of the IS-2 was cramped.
Certainly, they can at least take some pleasure in not being subjected to the abysmal interior of the British Churchill tanks.
Have you considered that the IS-2 has by far and away the biggest, heaviest ammunition with the longest recoil length of any gun/tank in that list. D-25 ammunition is 5 times heavier and 4 times longer than the 6-pdr, and the gun has around thrice the recoil length, while the IS-2 has twice the fighting volume of the Churchill?
I don't see the point you're trying to make. It isn't like the gunner is supposed to sit in the recoil path of the cannon, on well, any tank, and ammunition does not go into the loader or gunner space.
marathag
Banned
according to Archives Awareness the tanks are;
Churchill MK IV
Cromwell
T-34
IS-2
Panzer III
Panzer IV
M4A2 Sherman
Panther
Tiger
and the table is number/tank/mass/location of transmission/gun caliber/number of crew in the turret/turret ring diameter in millimeters/width of the gunner's space/size of the loader's space/height of the fighting compartment/size of the fighting compartment in meters cubed/size of the hull space in meters cubed/size of the turret in meters cubed/volume occupied by crew and components.
The indication from this is that the IS-2 had comparable width of gunner's space to other tanks, equivalent to the Tiger and superior to the Panzer III and IV, loader space size which is superior to all other tanks except for the Panther, and comparable height of the fighting compartment, superior to the Tiger, equivalent to the Panther, dramatically superior to the Pazer IV, and only inferior when compared to its German counterparts in the form of the Panzer III.
Therefor, I must doubt that the interior of the IS-2 was cramped.
Certainly, they can at least take some pleasure in not being subjected to the abysmal interior of the British Churchill tanks.
#4, the IS-2, has no listings for size of the hull space in meters cubed/size of the turret in meters cubed/volume occupied by crew and components.
So we really can't do the comparison for the IS-2
And volume itself isn't always the best metric, as angled plates can reduce usable space, since some gear like radios, were rectangular boxes, so would waste space in the area where placed.
Boxes like the Churchill and Cromwell have little of that wasted space problem.
Googling IS-2 and cramped does result in a good number of hits, so there is that.
I've read the IS-2 was cramped, and the IS-3 horribly cramped
Table was a good find though.
However, the loader in the Soviet tank has plenty of room to work, he does have to move the ammunition, but his actual space is quite decent. Furthermore, Soviet ammunition on the IS-2 is two-piece.
In the British tank, he barely has enough room to move even his shoulders - as noted in the blog post, that is only 1 cm more of space than the width of the average Soviet loader's shoulder span.
You can see from Wiking's posted internal schematics that that was not the case for the IS-2 for internal components and armor sloping. Furthermore, the actual crew member space is listed, and this is by no means cramped.
Just a quick question.
How large are the people in the reference picture? Without that it's frankly impossible to judge the size of the internal compartment.
How large are the people in the reference picture? Without that it's frankly impossible to judge the size of the internal compartment.
Can someone confirm that in the pictures shown in the post above that the propellant charges are stowed in cases that form the floor of the turret crew compartment. This is not good for many reasons! Such as when the turret turns the Breach of the gun will sweep over where the poor loader is stooping down trying to extract the next propellant charge. That is a recipe for having the loader swatted by the recoiling breach, definitely not good. the loader is standing on the propellant charge cases as he skips around trying to keep clear of the breach as the turret traverses. Also he is trying to release the projectiles from the racks on the rear turret wall as it suddenly moves in traverse, not get crushed by the breach, not drop the round and maintain balance if the tank is moving. The ergonomics in this thing are not exactly great. That it what I have noticed from just a quick glance at the two visuals available. Being a loader in these tanks is certainly not my idea of fun.
Deleted member 1487
For loading, the two piece ammo reduced RPM to about 2-3. Turrets were not rotated during loading procedure. It was meant as a heavy breakthrough vehicle, not a dueling weapon with enemy armor, do conducted itself somewhat differently, like a turreted assault gun. It was more of a stand off weapon, hitting targets from a distance, rather than something that would get in close and require rapid turret rotations in the heat of battle. It was more to support T-34/85s during their attacks AFIAK.
So You could say that the cramped interior and poor ergonomics compromised the tactical effectiveness of these tanks but the Russians considered this trade off worthwhile for the big hitting capability of the weapon.
FBKampfer
Banned
The additional height of the Panther's front drive only added approximately 4.2 tons as best I can calculate, based on high density nickel-steel alloys.
It was simply a big tank in all dimensions, with big, heavy components. Do remember that the turret ring was theoretically capable of mounting a 105mm cannon.
Additionally, the Panther was an excellent combat machine when it worked. The D's had a lot of problems with the fuel pump, and the late A and Mid-late G series had some serious issues with the drive trains, but as is often the case, it's frequently overblown.
Notably similar heavy vehicles are not typically associated with drive train issues. The Tiger is occasionally attributed with a weak steering mechanism, but for the most part was quite mechanically reliable. Astonishingly so for such a complex vehicle.
However around June 1944, we begin to really see reliability decline for all types, notably increases in mechanical failures, though admittedly this is especially prevalent in heavier vehicles. However this also coincidences with a rather drastic drop in quality of German metallurgy.
Granted I don't have information on the metallurgical composition of German final drive components, my interpretation is that the Panther and Tigers were inherently reliable designs, but were at the absolute end of their tether as far as weight and complexity, and didn't have the mechanical robustness or durability to absorb the drop in material quality.
It was simply a big tank in all dimensions, with big, heavy components. Do remember that the turret ring was theoretically capable of mounting a 105mm cannon.
Additionally, the Panther was an excellent combat machine when it worked. The D's had a lot of problems with the fuel pump, and the late A and Mid-late G series had some serious issues with the drive trains, but as is often the case, it's frequently overblown.
Notably similar heavy vehicles are not typically associated with drive train issues. The Tiger is occasionally attributed with a weak steering mechanism, but for the most part was quite mechanically reliable. Astonishingly so for such a complex vehicle.
However around June 1944, we begin to really see reliability decline for all types, notably increases in mechanical failures, though admittedly this is especially prevalent in heavier vehicles. However this also coincidences with a rather drastic drop in quality of German metallurgy.
Granted I don't have information on the metallurgical composition of German final drive components, my interpretation is that the Panther and Tigers were inherently reliable designs, but were at the absolute end of their tether as far as weight and complexity, and didn't have the mechanical robustness or durability to absorb the drop in material quality.
Would you say that using slave labor in the mid years of the war, also had an affect on German armour quality?
I thought I read somewhere that there were cases of sabotage involved in armour production, something about bits of foreign matter found in sections of engines.
I can't unfortunately quote a source.
marathag
Banned
There is this
he final drives are what transfer power from the transmission to the sprocket wheels, and were the weakest link of Panther's entire design. French postwar experience operating the tank produced a mean service life of just 150 kilometres – the average final drive would not last as long as a tank of petrol. The reason for this has been touted as everything from sabotage at the factories to poor materials. The real reason, as with so many things on Panther, is plain bad engineering.
In an effort to save production time, the gears inside the drives were straight-cut. Straight-cut gears are something you might use in a car; they're something you might even use in a light armoured vehicle. They are absolutely not something that should ever be used on a 45-ton tank intended to operate in a total war environment. The Germans learned from their mistake, and used double herringbone gears on the Tiger II, significantly improving the service life of that particular part.
Since the war, those with access to Panthers have examined the drives closely. Sabotage has indeed been found in some, with an example being gear teeth cut off and weakly reattached; another tank was found to have handfuls of metal shavings thrown into the housings. In fact, thanks to Germany's severely outmoded production methods, sabotage was not as damaging as would be expected from a system more like what the United States or Soviet Union used. Because workers stayed with a tank on the assembly line, rather than processing a specific part in a mass production system, one or two saboteurs could not ruin an entire batch of drives destined for many tanks themselves. In the case of the Panther at the Military Vehicle Technology Foundation, no signs of sabotage were found. In fact, the quality of the steel used on the gears was also tested in order to confirm or allay suspicions about that, and it was found to be of appropriate quality. It is clear, then, that neither sabotage nor the supposed use of scrap steel were the cause of Panther's final drive issues – it was simply a bad design, shoehorned into a tank it was not designed to support.
http://forum.worldoftanks.com/index.php?/topic/379375-panthers-final-drives/
he final drives are what transfer power from the transmission to the sprocket wheels, and were the weakest link of Panther's entire design. French postwar experience operating the tank produced a mean service life of just 150 kilometres – the average final drive would not last as long as a tank of petrol. The reason for this has been touted as everything from sabotage at the factories to poor materials. The real reason, as with so many things on Panther, is plain bad engineering.
In an effort to save production time, the gears inside the drives were straight-cut. Straight-cut gears are something you might use in a car; they're something you might even use in a light armoured vehicle. They are absolutely not something that should ever be used on a 45-ton tank intended to operate in a total war environment. The Germans learned from their mistake, and used double herringbone gears on the Tiger II, significantly improving the service life of that particular part.
Since the war, those with access to Panthers have examined the drives closely. Sabotage has indeed been found in some, with an example being gear teeth cut off and weakly reattached; another tank was found to have handfuls of metal shavings thrown into the housings. In fact, thanks to Germany's severely outmoded production methods, sabotage was not as damaging as would be expected from a system more like what the United States or Soviet Union used. Because workers stayed with a tank on the assembly line, rather than processing a specific part in a mass production system, one or two saboteurs could not ruin an entire batch of drives destined for many tanks themselves. In the case of the Panther at the Military Vehicle Technology Foundation, no signs of sabotage were found. In fact, the quality of the steel used on the gears was also tested in order to confirm or allay suspicions about that, and it was found to be of appropriate quality. It is clear, then, that neither sabotage nor the supposed use of scrap steel were the cause of Panther's final drive issues – it was simply a bad design, shoehorned into a tank it was not designed to support.
http://forum.worldoftanks.com/index.php?/topic/379375-panthers-final-drives/